Timeline for What is the definition of "Natural Selection"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2019 at 11:54 | history | edited | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 251 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2019 at 8:36 | answer | added | Sam | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 20:16 | history | edited | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
the edit was already made, I've just added [edit] titling that section
|
| Mar 15, 2019 at 13:03 | history | edited | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1844 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2019 at 11:00 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 | |||||
| Mar 15, 2019 at 10:48 | comment | added | fileunderwater | I think this is really related to the question linked above, and in this answer I name a couple of relevant sources to look at, and how to draw the line between natural selection and evolution by natural selection (which is sometimes fruitful). | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 10:44 | comment | added | fileunderwater | Possible duplicate of How is "selection" best defined? | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 10:34 | answer | added | John | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Mar 15, 2019 at 1:42 | history | edited | theforestecologist♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar fix
|
| S Mar 15, 2019 at 1:42 | history | suggested | cell0 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar fix
|
| Mar 14, 2019 at 22:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 15, 2019 at 1:42 | |||||
| Mar 14, 2019 at 19:01 | history | edited | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 14, 2019 at 5:43 | comment | added | J.G. | @jamesqf Well, replace it with whatever you think succeeds under natural selection, but in any case I think you're conflating how species compare to how individuals in a species compare, which is what natural selection is all about. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 5:29 | comment | added | Mesentery | @Remi.b I think Bryan Krause was suggesting you to edit the the natural-selection tag-info in SE. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 4:01 | comment | added | jamesqf | @J.G.: But fecundity, or reasonable lack thereof, really isn't a criterion for natural selection. An organism can be extremely fecund, like the codfish with its millions of eggs, or humans (and other mammals) which only have a few offspring but make a large investment in post-natal care. Either works: since both exist, they have obviously been selected for. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackBiology/status/1105982066699784192 | ||
| Mar 13, 2019 at 22:08 | comment | added | J.G. | As to whether it's a tautology: it's a tautology that the most fecund phenotypes will have more offspring, but it's not a tautology that there are more fecund phenotypes, or that heredity occurs, or that what qualifies as fit varies slowly (in fact, it might not). Nor is it a tautology that this is where adaptation comes from (or even primarily where it does), or that drift isn't also an important mechanism (which it is). These are all issues where evidence is key. | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 20:34 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | Of all the definitions, I think the SE tag one is possibly the worst. Maybe @Remi.b would take a stab at editing it, if you agree? | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 20:33 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Mar 13, 2019 at 20:25 | vote | accept | Zuhair Al-Johar | ||
| Mar 13, 2019 at 20:18 | history | edited | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 301 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2019 at 20:15 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | @mgkrebbs, oh yes, thanks, i didn't notice that really. I'll add it. | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 20:05 | comment | added | mgkrebbs | Then there's the definition which pops up when you hover your cursor over the tag "natural-selection" at the bottom of this question. | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 19:31 | answer | added | Bryan Krause♦ | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 19:24 | answer | added | Remi.b | timeline score: 14 | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 19:05 | history | edited | theforestecologist♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 13, 2019 at 19:04 | comment | added | theforestecologist♦ | I think it's unrealistic to expect to find word-for-word congruence b/w definitions from multiple sources. All your definitions still describe the same phenomenon conceptually. From a broader viewpoint, no 2 textbooks (or at least few) define "simpler" biological concepts the same (e.g., even the word cell). The same can be said of common non-scientific words (e.g., see dictionary.com, OED, Merriam-Webster, etc. for any given word). In conclusion, there is no "official" wording for this definition or most definitions. This is why bio instruction emphasizes learning concepts not words... | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 18:58 | history | edited | theforestecologist♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2019 at 18:51 | history | edited | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Mar 13, 2019 at 18:46 | history | asked | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |